{"id":362378,"date":"2018-05-23T01:22:22","date_gmt":"2018-05-23T00:22:22","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/?p=362378"},"modified":"2018-05-23T01:22:22","modified_gmt":"2018-05-23T00:22:22","slug":"will-israel-be-expelled-from-u-n","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/editorials\/will-israel-be-expelled-from-u-n\/","title":{"rendered":"Will Israel Be Expelled from U.N.?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Eric Zuesse<\/span><\/p>\n

The conditions of membership in the U.N. are specified in the U.N. Charter<\/span><\/a>. Specifically, \u201cArticles 5 and 6 of the Charter of the United Nations deal respectively with suspension of rights and privileges of membership, and with expulsion from the United Nations.\u201d But the operative part is Article 6, which reads<\/span><\/a>:<\/span><\/p>\n

“A Member of the United Nations which has persistently violated the Principles contained in the present Charter may be expelled from the Organization by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.\u201d<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

Israel certainly qualifies, but the United States Government, which is controlled by the anti-Shia and anti-Iran alliance between Israel\u2019s Government providing the anti-Iran lobbyists and propagandists, and the Saudi Government providing the anti-Iran bribe-money<\/span><\/a>, won\u2019t allow that. Consequently, no matter how violative of the U.N. Charter Israel is, it cannot be expelled.<\/span><\/p>\n

The United States Government likewise is routinely violating the U.N. Charter and cannot be expelled, because this very Government is on the U.N.\u2019s own Security Council as one of the five permanent members: it would veto its own expulsion.<\/span><\/p>\n

Consequently, a fatal flaw in the current U.N. Charter is that no vote by the U.N. General Assembly can expel a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council. Nor can they expel any member of the General Assembly that\u2019s backed by one or more members of the permanent Security Council. Until this situation is changed and a stated percentage of the votes from the General Assembly can expel a member from the U.N. General Assembly, there can be no international accountability applied against a member of the U.N. Security Council permanent five nations; and the U.S. Government, being a member of that, will continue to be allowed to do whatever its Saudi and Israeli masters want it to do \u2014 thereby protecting both Israel and Saudi Arabia themselves, and giving each of those two masters virtually as much freedom-of-action as the U.S. has; the U.S. Government\u2019s masters buy impunity, indirectly, from their protector. <\/span><\/p>\n

This is not a world of international law; it is a world of international force \u2014 basically a world of conquest and submission (and subversion can be part of that), which mocks democracy internationally (and maybe even domestically), and therefore effectively corrupts and prevents democracy within all nations that the controlling masters in Saudi Arabia and in Israel demand.<\/span><\/p>\n

The most fatal failure of the U.N. Charter is thus its prohibiting any amendment that one of the five permanent Security Council members opposes. <\/span><\/p>\n

The issue of what the conditions would be for amending the U.N. Charter was debated while the U.N. Charter was being drawn up in 1945, but nothing effective was agreed to, and so the U.N\u2019s PR on the matter states only that “the question of future amendments to the Charter received much attention and finally resulted in an agreed solution.\u201d<\/span><\/a> They don\u2019t say what that \u201csolution\u201d was, but there have been no controversial amendments made to the Charter, during its 73 years, so whatever it might have been was almost totally ineffective. A web-search for \u201cU.N. Charter\u201d plus \u201cproposed amendment\u201d produces no major \u201cproposed amendment\u201d but does, near the top, show what that (obviously failed) \u201cagreed solution\u201d (which the U.N. tries to hide) was; and it is<\/span><\/a>:<\/span><\/p>\n

“This concession took the form of Articles 108 and 109 concerning Charter review procedures. While Article 108 describes the required steps for making specific amendments, Article 109 introduces the option of a review conference outside of the usual General Assembly (GA) meetings with the purpose of a comprehensive \u201creview\u201d of the Charter. Both these avenues for making changes to the UN Charter include the criteria of two-thirds of the UN member states voting for and ratifying a proposed amendment. However, in addition, \u201call the permanent members of the Security Council\u201d must also ratify before the amendment goes into force. This unanimous concurrence of the P5 <\/i>[the five permanent members] is the biggest challenge to adopting any amendment to the UN Charter.\u201d<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

In other words: The U.N. Charter\u2019s colossal (and thus-far fatal) failure was in its including the 5-member permanent Security Council\u2019s veto-provision to apply even to any proposed amendment to the Charter. Only an amendment which all five permanent members support can pass. Here<\/span><\/a> is such an amendment. No matter how much of the rest of the world want a particular change to be made, it can\u2019t be done unless all five of the permanent members of the Security Council will accept it. This is the harmful dictatorial power that the five permanents were granted, but it can be eliminated without eliminating the Security Council itself (as will be discussed later here).<\/span><\/p>\n

Consequently: In order to boot Israel or any other international rogue-nation out of the U.N., an amendment would first be needed, which would apply a degree of accountability to each member of the U.N. permanent Security Council, by stripping the provision that inappropriately applies their veto-power even over the consideration of any proposed amendment<\/i><\/b>. Obviously: amending the Charter should be a matter for consideration only by the General Assembly \u2014 without any veto-power being held by any<\/i> one nation. Amendment isn\u2019t regular U.N. action: it concerns the Charter itself<\/i>.<\/span><\/p>\n

The biggest difference between a religious Scripture and a democratic constitution (such as the U.N. Charter was intended to be for the entire world) is that whereas the former (Scripture) includes no provision for its being amended, the latter (a democratic constitution) does \u2014 or else it instead is<\/i> actually a religious Scripture, something to be taken only on faith, no democracy at all, nothing suitable for the Age of Science, and thus for a future of democracy. This faith-basis being the actual epistemological status of the U.N. Charter \u2014 unless and until its amendment-section becomes itself amended to what it needs to be \u2014 that Charter is a religious Scripture, and the U.N. is more a religion than a democracy of any kind, so long as there exists any nation that can veto any proposed change to the founding document. Though intended to be the emerging democratic constitution for the future world, the existing U.N. Charter is instead just a type of religion, and this is its Scripture. (Though, as noted, uncontroversial amendments may be considered in it; so, the U.N. isn\u2019t fully<\/i> a religious institution.)<\/span><\/p>\n

Consequently, to address these problems, I propose that the members of the U.N. Security Council that wish to establish through the U.N. a democracy and transform the U.N. so as to abandon its current status as being a religion, push, at the U.N., relentlessly, for a measure to unlock the U.N. Charter \u2014 to enable it finally to be significantly amended and allow a two-thirds vote of the General Assembly to pass into international law as an Amendment to the emerging global Constitution, the no longer religion, but instead henceforth the democracy, of an unlocked Charter of the United Nations \u2014 thereby causing the existing Scripture to be henceforth a Constitution. <\/span><\/p>\n

Unless and until this (the introduction of the General Assembly\u2019s exclusive<\/i> ability to amend the Charter) is done, there can be no progress, only continued regress to international dictatorship and a World War III, and so in the direction of even more global dictatorship \u2014 this time likely ending in global extermination (precisely what the U.N. was intended to avoid).<\/span><\/p>\n

Any member of the Security Council who would oppose removing that provision \u2014 the veto-power\u2019s extending even to any proposed amendment to the Charter \u2014 would be clearly an international pariah-Government and enemy of democracy, which all the rest of the world could then boycott and penalize outside the U.N. until that pariah-nation becomes defeated economically and thus effectively becomes coerced by economic means to become a decent member-state in the international community.<\/span><\/p>\n

This is an existential issue for the future of a livable planet. A basic condition for progress is the elimination, from the Charter, of the clause:<\/span><\/p>\n

“including all the permanent members of the Security Council.\u201d<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

That phrase must be removed both from Article 108 and from Article 109, Paragraph 2, both of which say:<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

\u201c108. Amendments to the present Charter shall come into force for all Members of the United Nations when they have been adopted by a vote of two-thirds of the members of the General Assembly and ratified in accordance with their respective<\/i> [individual national] constitutional processes by two-thirds of the Members of the United Nations, <\/i>including all the permanent members of the Security Council<\/i><\/b>.\u201d<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

\u201c109:2. Any alteration of the present Charter recommended by a two-thirds vote of the conference shall take effect when ratified in accordance with their respective constitutional processes by two thirds of the Members of the United Nations <\/i>including all the permanent members of the Security Council<\/i><\/b>.\u201d<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

The five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council are: China, France, Russia, UK, and U.S.<\/span><\/a> U.S. would try to block removal of that phrase \u201cincluding all the permanent members of the Security Council.\u201d On 14 May 2018, Russia\u2019s Sputnik News bannered “UK Has no Plans to Move Embassy to Jerusalem, Disagrees With US on Issue – May\u201d<\/span><\/a>, and this indicates that the U.S. well might be the only member that would fight to block democratization of the U.N. \u2014 to unlock the Charter for all U.N. members.<\/span><\/p>\n

The precipitating event for this call for correcting the Charter would be the virtually unanimous repugnance of the entire world other than the U.S., regarding Israel\u2019s string of brazen in-your-face violations of the Charter and of much of international law. Taking advantage of this intense global outrage \u2014 plus of the many outrageous actions by the U.S. Government itself \u2014 provides a rare opportunity to make the long-delayed but essential reform of the U.N., as follows:<\/span><\/p>\n

America is the only member, of the five permanent members of the Security Council, that is so under the boot of Israel<\/span><\/a> and of the Sauds<\/span><\/a>. America is controlled by its own aristocracy, which are heavily interlocked with those of Israel and especially of Saudi Arabia and its other vassals, such as UAE but more broadly including the Gulf Cooperation Council<\/span><\/a> of Arabic fundamentalist-Sunni royal families \u2014 and that includes a large portion of the world\u2019s wealth. The American portion of that Imperial alliance includes control over many of the world\u2019s largest consumer-brands, and is thus (unlike either of its masters) especially highly vulnerable to international public-image problems, such as any consumer boycotts.<\/span><\/p>\n

There might be a way to save the world. This might be the way to a progressive future, reversing the worst of what has happened after the death of FDR (who, more than any other person, laid the groundwork for the U.N.<\/span><\/a>).<\/span><\/p>\n

Though the U.S. Government might succeed in winning the UK\u2019s support to block democratization of the U.N., such boycotts might produce a democratic victory, if not immediately, then still within a reasonably short time, such as happened when apartheid was removed from South Africa. But this victory would be not only for the Palestinians \u2014 it would be for all peoples everywhere \u2014 a world moving in the direction of international democracy, no longer like now, in the direction of increased international dictatorship.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014<\/span><\/p>\n

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of\u00a0 They\u2019re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010<\/i><\/span><\/a>,<\/i> and of<\/span> \u00a0<\/i>CHRIST\u2019S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity<\/i><\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Eric Zuesse The conditions of membership in the U.N. are specified in the U.N. Charter. Specifically, \u201cArticles 5 and 6 of the Charter of the United Nations deal respectively with suspension of rights and privileges of membership, and with expulsion from the United Nations.\u201d But the operative part is Article 6, which reads: “A Member […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1254,"featured_media":362379,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[461,519],"tags":[30,96,535,67,847,804,8776],"class_list":{"0":"post-362378","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-editorials","8":"category-newswire","9":"tag-big-brother","10":"tag-cover-up","11":"tag-global-news","12":"tag-israel","13":"tag-palestinians","14":"tag-politics-2","15":"tag-u-n"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/362378","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1254"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=362378"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/362378\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/362379"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=362378"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=362378"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=362378"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}